The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: Legolis on May 01, 2011, 08:14:21 PM
-
The President is about to announce that he is dead and the US has his body.
Osama bin Laden MSN (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42852700/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/?gt1=43001)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/bin.laden.obit/index.html?hpt=T1)
edited to add in articles
-
no joke: i was in the middle of a game on GCCG when my mom unplugged our internet to watch the news on osama bin laden. mom's these days... sheesh...
-
I know pretty crazy stuff I wonder if Trump will still waste billions on running for President now?
-
i sure hope that was sarcasm.
-
Yes, I echo mm. Americans, with the amount of religious teachings they preach, should be the first to admit that, if you can't give life, then you can't take it away either, that is a right reserved for God only. I'm not saying the guy was NOT a douchebag in any way, he was. Then again, he WAS trained by the US military, so, well, yeah. I don't think the world loses anything with his death, honestly speaking, but even so, I wouldn't be one to simply go out and kill him because of that, I know better.
-
It's always a good idea to bring religion into a discussion.
-
Yes, I echo mm. Americans, with the amount of religious teachings they preach, should be the first to admit that, if you can't give life, then you can't take it away either, that is a right reserved for God only...
Sorry, I'm gonna call this one out. Have you ever read the old testament? Just because you believe in God doesn't make you a pacifist. There is a difference between murder and killing in the defense others or oneself. I'd even go so far as to say (based on evidence from the old testament) that ridding the world of a man that evil is not an evil thing, especially since he was still actively plotting terror against western countries.
-
I'd venture to call it a necessary evil (tracking down Bin Laden), but I don't think we should be cheering in the streets about it. To be honest, I don't think things are going to get any better because of this, and it likely could get worse.
-
i sure hope that was sarcasm.
Partially. More like it was late at night, and I was over-sugared and hyped up by Obama's speech.
Yes, I echo mm. Americans, with the amount of religious teachings they preach, should be the first to admit that, if you can't give life, then you can't take it away either, that is a right reserved for God only. I'm not saying the guy was NOT a douchebag in any way, he was.
Douchebag≠ Mass Murderer
If he was just some guy who preached that American was horrible I wouldn't be happy, heck even if he was a guy who engineered attacks against American soldiers I wouldn't think of it as such a big deal...but engineering attacks against innocent civilians? I'm pretty much ok with him finally getting what he deserved. Yeah I know, final judgement is reserved for God and all, but I'm not too concerned if we helped him get to that final judgement a little quicker.
I don't know, maybe I'll end up having a different opinion in a week.
(and I deleted my last post to avoid offending any small children who are on these boards...and because no one should be held to what they said at midnight ;))
-
I went out last night like everyone else on the looky box and was running around but there wasn't anyone else out in the holler, so I just came back in and went to bed.
-
It always surprises me when people ignore or discount the NEW Testament when talking about Christianity. Granted, the Old Testament makes for much better drama and thrills, but the "Love Thy Enemy"-Strategy works much better in the long run.
I fully understand how satisfying it must be to see this sorry excuse for a human being dead, but he is now considered a "Holy Jihad Warrior" as the Hamas called him. So, think about it: How much more satisfying could it have been, if the person and the idea of Bin-Laden had been proved to have accomplished NOTHING but bring suffering to everybody, his enemies as well as the people he, supposedly, fought for?
Why not help the societies he recruits his followers from, to develop so such a degree that the people simply stop listening to him and realize what a sick and evil person he had been?
Again, no immediate results, no Hollywood-material. Instead a lengthy, agonizingly slow process which may take generations for the hatred to slowly die out, but it surely beats the vicious circle of violence begetting violence.
I am not saying his killing served no purpose, but I doubt it will have any considerable positive effect of limiting terrorism worldwide. It may very well invigorate his organisation, instead.
Anyway, I may be too naive or too much a realist, but if you want long-term peace, you should be the first to stop using violence altogether, be completely honest to yourself and the people/societies around you, and do what is morally right. The Western world still has a long way to go in that respect...
The Bin-Laden thing may have been necessary to bring closure to many, but now one should honestly start thinking how people could even reach the point at which they believed flying airplanes into skyscrapers was a reasonable thing to do, and fight those conditions that made such madness possible.
-
No one should be held to what they said after a night of heavy drinking.
I fixed that for you to be more universal.
-wtk
-
Well, your previous president is also a mass murderer, by the same standards (as in, killing innocents during an armed incursion into another's country), and I never saw anyone in the U.S. rushing with a gun in hand to do him in for it.
Yes, he was a terrorist. Yes, what he did was horrible. Yes, the world IS probably better off without him. Even so, death is nothing to cheer about, ever. THIS is my point. Overthrowing his government, arresting him, making him stand trial for the crimes he commited, locking him up pretty much forever, to let him fall into oblivion, THIS is good stuff. Not making him a martyr.
-
In principle, I agree with you. To be honest, I think asking people who lost loved ones in 9/11 would be the best way to figure out whether they did something right or wrong.
It certainly sounds like they tried to capture him, he refused, and they killed him. Details are still kind of hazy though.
-
Kind of tired of religious/moral debates in forums :/ maybe because I've come across like 7 of them last week.
But seriously guys, you DO know that the fact he's dead changes almost nothing in terms of terrorism fighting, right?
-
It actually does. It just changes for the worse, since now he's a martyr, so not onyl you have to deal with terrorist basking in the same principles, but now ALSO with terrorists that will "worship" him, wreaking havoc for havoc's sake.
-
It actually does. It just changes for the worse, since now he's a martyr, so not onyl you have to deal with terrorist basking in the same principles, but now ALSO with terrorists that will "worship" him, wreaking havoc for havoc's sake.
In some sense I agree, but in another sense, he was still someone who rallied support and money and planned operations. Just because someone else will take his place doesn't mean that it isn't useful to make it so someone else has to take his place, and, the people who aren't exactly excited about dying for the cause are going to be a little less likely to participate, knowing that even Bin Laden could be found.
-
its hard not to get excited when they promise you a bajillion virgins in the afterlife. i hope they're virgins are militant nuns...
-
It's hard not to get excited when they promise you a bajillion virgins in the afterlife. I hope their virgins are militant nuns...
I fixed that for you, too.
-wtk
-
Bin Laden's not dead... It's all a conspiracy by President Soetoro. He's alive in a secret government bunker with Elvis and Michael Jackson.
This is the final elaborate act in the Illuminati cover-up of the government perpetrated 9-11 hoax.
Uh-oh, I think they're after me... Time to put on my Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html) to avoid mind-control.
-
ah ket, what would i do without you? write with poor grammar i guess...
-
Personally I think he had it coming, but I consider this whole business a nasty affair, not a dancing-in-the-streets deal.
Given his desire to go down fighting, I don't think capturing him was a realistic scenario. Terrorists will continue to kill regardless of whether he's a martyr or not; then again, it's not like the news is reporting that anti-terrorism operations are concluding all over the world.
Also imprisoning someone for the rest of his life doesn't guarantee that further harm will be prevented. A murderer without remorse could NOLINKescape, be freed in a prisoner exchange, order attacks from behind bars, etc.
-
Best case scenario? Capture him, use the overwhelming evidence against him in a trial, convict him, and hang him ala the Nuremberg trials. Preferably from some suitably awesome monument. Haven't decided which one would've been best ;)
-
I am disappointed with the street partying but I understand why.
I highly doubt anything will change because of this.
-
Apparently they didn't just kill Osama, they also captured loads of intelligence. I haven't found confirmation yet, but if it is true...
I'm just curious, you people who aren't happy about this (which I can somewhat understand) what did you want the US to do?
-
Osama declared war on the United States in 1995. He started it, we finished it.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person, who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stuart Mill
:cpunch:
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
-
Osama declared war on the United States in 1995. He started it, we have just made the next few moves.
I fixed that for you.
-wtk
-
Apparently they didn't just kill Osama, they also captured loads of intelligence. I haven't found confirmation yet, but if it is true...
I'm just curious, you people who aren't happy about this (which I can somewhat understand) what did you want the US to do?
I'm actually quite happy (or rather, mildly amused), to be honest. As I said, I firmly believe the world IS a bit better without him. That being said, A LOT of people could be killed to make the world a better place, like some pop singers, athletes and actors, so name a few categories, and we don't go shooting them left and right. I'm actually against CELEBRATING someone's death on the streets (unless that someone was the dictator in YOUR country, then that's fine, it's part of the revolutionary process), no matter who that someone is.
-
Killing pop singers, athletes and actors would make the world a better or safer place? I don't see these kind of people taking up guns or strapping bombs to their children to blow up people, so I don't really see a threat there. As far as people in America celebrating in the streets it is not much different then when the middle eastern population was dancing in the streets, burning American flags and bibles after 9/11.
-
Firstly, I think it's clear that there are instances where it's appropriate to 'celebrate' someone's death. For instance, I guarantee if Hitler had been assassinated to end WW2 it would have been cause for celebration. However I'm concerned that in this situation it will just help to fuel the fire of the back and forth hate. While I think America is justified in celebrating the death of one who targets civilians for terrorist attacks (note VERY different from the collateral damage that sometimes kills citizens in war), I believe it would have been better to take a high road and stay more solemn - focusing on the folks who died in 9/11 instead of Bin Laden, who doesn't deserve the attention now that he's gone. (RUN ON ALERT)
Also, no offense meant, but I think that comparing Bin Laden, a self proclaiming terrorist/murderer of thousands, and pop singers/athletes/actors is just plain silly. There's a slight difference between moral depravity and mass murder.
-
well wished they killed justin bieber or someone too though!
-
justin bieber, lady gaga, the jonas brothers... the list goes on...
actually, something i have been thinking about, and i don't actually believe this, but hear me out anyways, just for fun. ok, so the USA sustains an attack on the trade towers pentagon etc... it is a terrorist attack, so there is no clear enemy to fight. if you are the USA government you quite possibly could want a single man to lay the blame on so the the citizens of your country have someone to direct their hate at. so we pick a random Al Qaeda guy and tell everyone that he was the mastermind, and then go after him in Afghanistan, with the support of most of the people.
the reason i don't believe that: if we really did invent the fact that he was the mastermind, a story about his death would also have been engineered to bring closure much much sooner. as in, while it is still fresh in peoples minds. it makes no sense to create a villainous persona who runs around free for the next 10 years.
-
Agreed! ...and it is a good thing that this nemesis is finally dead. Now it would be a very good time to open a new dialogue with Middle Eastern countries, don't you think?
I mean, the US tried to fight terrorism and help other countries. Having accomplished a victory with one thing, why not focus on helping and trying to reach a cultural common ground now, a way to get along?
Maybe eschewing violence altogether is not practical. It may even be a bit self-righteous. BUT - and this is a big BUT - using violence because you don't have the patience or strength of character to go for a peaceful solution is just as self-righteous and cowardly. What does it say about you, if you feel secure only with the bigger weapon?
I guess weapons are just like cars. The bigger they are, the "smaller" the people who own them...
Cheers, NRA ;)
-
Well, since Bin Laden continued to infest the emdia with video-threats, a fake story about his death (and one of those long, drawn-out plots about evil masterminds having doubles, etc...) was likely to table back quickly, and that would then WITHDRAW the trust the people put n the government in the first place. No, they had to wait out on this one. They got him in the "conveniently right" time, I think, since the war hype has been cooling down, and this is gonna light up the spark again, saying that the tax dollars used in the offensive WERE put to good use, after all. If anything else, as far as conspiracy theories go, I'd say it was better to "save" Bin Laden for killing at another time, so, if I were a conspiracy-freak, I'd actually sutain the US DID know where to find him for a while now, they justo chose not to. I'm not too keen on wacky theories, though, so I just credit it to thoroughness. It's hard to hide nowadays if the right people REALLY want to get you, period.
-
Maybe eschewing violence altogether is not practical. It may even be a bit self-righteous. BUT - and this is a big BUT - using violence because you don't have the patience or strength of character to go for a peaceful solution is just as self-righteous and cowardly. What does it say about you, if you feel secure only with the bigger weapon?
2 points.
First, I think you need to expound on this a bit. It sounds like you're saying the United States was not justified in defended themselves against a man who declared war on them in 1995 and who killed 3,000 of their civilians.
Second, and this goes for EVERYONE, so pay attention. I'm going to teach you something: One of the best ways to prevent/win a war is to make yourself look so lethal that no one will want to fight you because it would cost them WAY too many resources to do so (by resources I mean capital, natural, and human). So yes, security and safety comes from carrying an ENORMOUS weapon. Speak softly and carry a cruise missile. That's what I say!
-
Second, and this goes for EVERYONE, so pay attention. I'm going to teach you something: One of the best ways to prevent/win a war is to make yourself look so lethal that no one will want to fight you because it would cost them WAY too many resources to do so (by resources I mean capital, natural, and human). So yes, security and safety comes from carrying an ENORMOUS weapon. Speak softly and carry a cruise missile. That's what I say!
based on your definition, the terrorists are in the better position. it costs us WAY too much money, equipment, personnel, to carry on this "war against terror" (a war you can't win in this world.) whereas for the terrorists, they believe dying in combat sends you to the highest heaven. and by definition terrorists don't give a #$&*@! how big our military penis is.
-
But... (http://twitter.com/#!/R_Mendenhall/status/65166153525379072)
-wtk
P.S., Thanks Rashard.
The only thing is that most American's have heard him preach his hatred and death to America since 1995 when he started his bombings of the US Embassy's and declared war on America. There is a lot of video of him training his jihadists to kill Americans at all costs even if its at the loss of their life. Now don't get me wrong Americans have done some pretty underhanded things too over the last 50 years or so over in the Middle east. Nobody is perfect but I think this can be a turning point towards peace once the initial retaliations are over with. Americans are expecting it so the shock won't be as great when it does happen. Also after seeing how a raid should be instead of sending an entire army to get one man we can drop from birds out of the sky with 20 or so and get it done a lot cheaper with a bullet instead of a cruise missile from now on. Of course I would hope that when this settles down some we can start settling things in a peaceful manner with open ears and open minds.
-
bin Laden was bedridden with kidney disease and walked with a cane when they killed him. Apparently he was unarmed and "resisted" though details aren't clear on how he did. Part of me worries they just got in there and killed him since they had the "authority" to do so, according to a White House spokesperson.
Still, I'm glad he's dead. Nasty piece of work, that leader. Al Qaeda is weakened because of his loss, and hopefully their other remaining leaders will be hunted down.
-
...and hopefully their other remaining leaders will be hunted down.
But they won't. And the war on terror will go on and on until we realize that we can't invade every country that harbors extremist muslims. After all, Indonesia has training camps, Saudi Arabia gave 18 out 19 of the suicide bombers of 9-11, and Iran hates our guts, and would cheerfully dance in the streets if we got nuked, or something like that. And Pakistan harbored Osama for years. The middle east isn't a big game of whac-a-mole. I've actually become rather anti-war* after all this Bush stupidity (now Obama stupidity, but hey, at least O brought some closure with Bin Laden's death) as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (technically police actions- but hey, that's what they called Korea and Vietnam) seem to be dragging on, and on, and on. Y'all remember what happened last time a super-power invaded Afghanistan? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Afghanistan_war)
And can you believe we want to intervene in Libya? >:( Idiot politicians.
*anti pointless wars that is. I'm fine with the War for Independence and WW2.
-
GT, seeing your reply made my day. If one of the most stubborn people to discuss with, EVER, can have that growth of mind in topics regarding an age-old discussion, then discussion is NOT pointless after all. I couldn't agree with you more, like I said, if my country was ruled by a Dictator and HE got killed in a rebellion, heck, I'd dance over his grave. But it's different.
-
@MM: Your right, based on my definition the terrorists are in a better position. What does that tell you about the way the United States has been "waging" war? Another lesson about war: You must match or exceed your opponent's intensity to win. The terrorists are participating in an all-out religious war (give or take a few groups). In order to even come close to succeeding we have to match their ferocity, we have to wage all-out war.
Granted, this conflict is not a nation vs. nation combat so it has to be fought differently as it was mentioned we can't keep playing "middle east whack-a-mole." The tricky part is balancing diplomacy and military action. For example: we could have waged all-out war in Pakistan since Osama was harbored there. In fact the objective of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM was to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. We could have bombed Pakistan back to the stone age killing every single terrorist (and everyone else) in that country. However, that is not very diplomatic. On the flip side we could send emissary after emissary entreating peace and pleading for permission to search for Osama and all the Pakis would have to do is say, "sure go ahead, but you can't look here, here, or there." and our efforts would be thwarted.
Summary: We have to match/exceed the enemy's level of intensity if we want to come out on top. MM made a good point, the terrorists are doing a much better job at walking quietly and carrying a cruise missile, but if we match their intensity they wouldn't stand a chance. However, matching their intensity would result in the death of LOTS of civilians. Carpet bombing anyone?
-
@MM: Your right, based on my definition the terrorists are in a better position. What does that tell you about the way the United States has been "waging" war? Another lesson about war: You must match or exceed your opponent's intensity to win. The terrorists are participating in an all-out religious war (give or take a few groups). In order to even come close to succeeding we have to match their ferocity, we have to wage all-out war.
Granted, this conflict is not a nation vs. nation combat so it has to be fought differently as it was mentioned we can't keep playing "middle east whack-a-mole." The tricky part is balancing diplomacy and military action. For example: we could have waged all-out war in Pakistan since Osama was harbored there. In fact the objective of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM was to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. We could have bombed Pakistan back to the stone age killing every single terrorist (and everyone else) in that country. However, that is not very diplomatic. On the flip side we could send emissary after emissary entreating peace and pleading for permission to search for Osama and all the Pakis would have to do is say, "sure go ahead, but you can't look here, here, or there." and our efforts would be thwarted.
Summary: We have to match/exceed the enemy's level of intensity if we want to come out on top. MM made a good point, the terrorists are doing a much better job at walking quietly and carrying a cruise missile, but if we match their intensity they wouldn't stand a chance. However, matching their intensity would result in the death of LOTS of civilians. Carpet bombing anyone?
So what would you have us do? Because carpet bombing isn't going to solve anything, except perhaps to aid Al-Qaeda's recruiting drive.
-
Spies. Lots and lots of spies. And ops like the one that just took out Osama.
-
That is the million dollar question Gate Troll. What should we do because you're right, carpet bombing isn't going to help. It may eliminate the "problem," but at the same time it would create a new one. The best answer (thus far) has been (as SoP suggests) spies, lots of spies and special ops.
Fighting a war against someone who doesn't pertain to a specific nation, for example Nazi Germany (not to be confused with modern day Germany) is for all intents and purposes a "new" problem. There are no answers yet. The best thing we can do is define a mission goal and accomplish it the best we know how. Which is something we are learning now: Don't go in without a plan. That includes an exit strategy.
-
Even when Great Britain was fighting Nazi Germany, Churchill ordered carpet bombing of Berlin and other major cities to stem the invasion of Britain. It worked, as Hitler retaliated by carpet bombing London, and it halted the plans to invade.
I can't say I am very proud of Churchill's decision. Civilians living in Nazi Germany were not Nazi's themselves. However, it reminds me of the (unconfirmed) quote by Churchill that we can live our normal lives because "rough men stand ready to do violence against those that would harm us". Perhaps certain people are more capable, and can live with, the idea of such acts.
-
Too true Jord. Someone has to make those decisions. In the end, as far as carpet bombing goes (specifically in churchill's situation) you have to ask your self: Us, or them?
-
I'm just glad I don't have to make the decisions; instead I get to judge them on internet forums
-
No one wants to make those decisions. Heck, if I had my way we'd all get along and be peaceful, but that isn't how life is. No matter how hard we try, there is always a bully in the wings who wants to mess stuff up, deplete your gold count or watch the world burn. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to alleviate pain and suffering.